Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/09/2025 5:04:15 AM PST by MtnClimber
The first nine months of the President Trump’s second term have seen repeated instances of a Federal District Court judge temporarily enjoining some action of the administration, only to have the Supreme Court stay the injunction while the litigation proceeds. Examples of this pattern of events have occurred in cases involving such things as funding rescissions, staff lay-offs, and deportation procedures.
A recurring feature of this pattern has been dissents from the three liberal Supreme Court justices — Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson — who would have left the temporary injunctions in place during the pendency of the litigation. Justice Jackson, in addition to joining the other two liberal justices, has also issued several individual dissents strongly criticizing her conservative colleagues for vacating temporary injunctions from District Courts.
The question of whether the administration gets enjoined while litigation proceeds, versus an injunction getting issued only at the conclusion of full litigation, is very consequential. Full litigation of any one of these cases through a District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court, could take four years or more — in other words, the entire presidential term. If a temporary injunction gets put in place by a District Court judge when the case starts, and then litigation proceeds for four years with that injunction in place, that would mean that the Trump administration never gets to implement its policy at all during its term in office — even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that Trump had the authority to implement the policy all along. With enough of these temporary injunctions, the entire Trump administration could be tied up in knots, and prevented from doing much or even most what it was elected to do.
The past week has seen two more instances of the pattern play out. But notably, in one of the cases that reached the Supreme Court on Friday November 7, the District Court injunction proved too much even for Justice Jackson. In that case Justice Jackson herself issued an administrative stay of the District Court’s temporary injunction.
The first of these two cases to reach the Supreme Court this week was Trump v. Orr. This case involves a Trump first-day (January 20, 2025) Executive Order that directed that the federal government would only “recognize two sexes, male and female,” and further directed the State Department to “require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.” Seven “transgender” individuals challenged the Executive Order, and their case came before District Judge Julia Kobick in the District of Massachusetts. On June 17, Judge Kobick issued a temporary injunction, barring the federal government from implementing the new policy. The Justice Department then went to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to stay Judge Kobick’s ruling. On September 19, the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued its decision on November 6. There is a four paragraph unsigned opinion on behalf of the six conservative justices, followed by a 12 page dissent from Justice Jackson, in which Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joined.
The remarkable thing about this case is that there was no statute from Congress that the plaintiffs said the administration was violating. The policy to allow passports matching “gender identity” rather than biological sex was nothing more than a policy of the State Department, which had changed a previous policy of the State Department that had been consistent with the Trump administration position. The majority opinion dispatches with the plaintiffs’ argument in a few sentences, notably this one:
Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.
Justice Jackson meanwhile works herself up into some high dudgeon:
[S]enseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.
Justice Jackson’s dissent never discusses the issue that the practical effect of the result she asks for would be to have a lone District Judge in Massachusetts running the State Department passport-issuance process for the four years of the Trump presidency.
But then the very next day, November 7, a case came to Justice Jackson that crossed even her line for what a District Judge ought to be able to do. The case is Rollins v. Rhode Island State Council of Churches, and involves the question of whether the federal government must “fully fund” the SNAP (food stamp) program during the current government shut-down, despite lack of congressional appropriations for the program.
The Rhode Island Council of Churches brought their case in the District of Rhode Island, and got themselves before the Chief Judge of that court, noted partisan John McConnell. For those unfamiliar with Judge McConnell, before President Obama appointed him to the bench he was a partner of the Motley Rice law firm, one of the lead counsel in the massive tobacco litigation that ended in a $240 billion settlement in 1998. McConnell’s total personal compensation from that litigation has not been disclosed, but Legal Newsline reports that in connection with his Senate confirmation he revealed that he would get continuing payouts of between $2.5 and $3.1 million per year from 2011 to 2024 (after he was on the bench!) and that his total payout from the settlement was “perhaps as much as” $78 million. McConnell has also tussled with the Trump administration in previous litigations.
The Council of Churches brought its case in late October, as the government shut-down continued and it looked like the food stamp program would run out of money in early November; and as the days wore on, it looked like the money would run out on November 7. According to the government’s emergency motion to the Supreme Court:
[A]fter 5 p.m. last night [November 6], [Judge McConnell] ordered the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to cover the SNAP shortfall by transferring billions of dollars that were appropriated for different, critical food-security programs—such as the National School Lunch Program—within a single business day (i.e., by tonight).
The Justice Department managed to get itself to the First Circuit (where no stay was immediately issued) and then to the Supreme Court by 9 PM on November 7. Here is another brief excerpt from the Justice Department’s application to the Supreme Court:
The district court’s ruling is untenable at every turn. The court demanded that USDA find some, any, way to fund SNAP, treating the program essentially as a mandatory entitlement. But the SNAP statute is explicit that SNAP benefits are subject to available appropriations, and it states plainly that SNAP payments shall not exceed the funds appropriated for the program. . . . As USDA explained, pulling billions of dollars from the Child Nutrition Programs would jeopardize those programs’ ability to fully operate this year—putting at risk critical food-assistance initiatives relied upon by millions of children every day, and raiding a program that Congress did fund to instead extend one that Congress has not funded.
Apparently this one was too much even for Justice Jackson. According to SCOTUS Blog, at 9:17 PM yesterday, Justice Jackson issued an administrative stay, staying Judge McConnell’s order until the First Circuit has time to consider whether it will issue a stay pending appeal. (And if it doesn’t, then presumably the government will immediately be back at the Supreme Court again.)
There still is that pesky “appropriations clause” of the Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” We’ll see if that rather clear language can stand up to the emotional arguments being made.
In the United States, we are the country where our iconic national holiday, now approaching, celebrates how brave pioneers were able to come to an uncharted wilderness and figure out how to feed themselves. And yet somehow now we have some 42 million people, about one person in eight, dependent on government handouts and supposedly at risk of starvation if the handouts don’t arrive on time. Really, it is shameful.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
There is a reason Mr. Ranger tells campers not to feed the bears.
The law has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose.
The state of the courts is alarming. The Constitution says nothing. Congressional law says nothing. But the plaintiff goes to the Supreme Court hoping that they will make up something out of thin air that will be emotionally satisfying.
That was for the gender identity on passports.
The SNAP situation seems even worse to me. Some little judge orders the Executive Branch to spend money that it does not have, that has never been appropriated. The little judge doesn't care but simply directs the President to carry out the will of the little judge. It would be far better, I think, if the little judge were to assert his superiority over the Legislative Branch and simply order the Democrats in the Senate to approve the Continuing Resolution. "Bow down before me you lowly Senators, for I am a Rhode Island District Judge and I order you to carry out my wishes!"
Somebody needs to bring these judges to heel. Laugh them out of court. The Judicial Branch needs to police the Judicial Branch.
“...dependent on government handouts and supposedly at risk of starvation if the handouts don’t arrive on time...”
The majority of SNAP funds go to illegal aliens. Tens of millions of foreign parasites brought in by the democrat party to increase congressional districts in Rat states.
On the bright side Trump 2.0 exposed the partisan Obama fed judges who infect and undermine the integrity of the justice system. DC judge Boasberg and Howell are prime examples of fanatical left wing judges. Republicans should nuke the filibuster and impeach them all.
The Judicial Branch needs to police the Judicial Branch.
No.
The constitution gives that responsibility to the house of representatives (not capitalized on purpose).
Tell your rep to do his or her job!
Do you know if anyone has done any follow-up or accounting of all these district judge rulings - regarding their current appeal status or eventual result?
For all I know, they have all been tossed on appeal and the White House has not been ‘run’ by the courts. Or the opposite - Injjst don’t know.
Manhattan Contrarian ping
The headlines have all been that a judge demanded Trump fund SNAP and Trump was fighting it like a Grinch.
This is the first I have read that the judge demanded DEFUNDING and reallocation for food programs and Trump is opposing this. The headlines SHOULD have been about Trump rescuing child food programs.
An obvious attempt at impeding a POTUS when impeachment isn't on the table and the laws don't favor an agenda.
I notice that the district court judges seem to be ordering the Executive Branch to do or not do something but are not trying to issue orders to the Legislative Branch in the same way.
By the same people, for the same purpose as the HilaryHag’s lies about RussiGate and then hiring that hack Mueller to cover it up for years.
Time for Exec branch to assert its prerogative and just act in accordance with Const. E.g., sanctuary city crappola is a violation of Const. Arrest and jail all involved. Martial law takeover of every city that does this.
just do it
It’s time to get everyone of these Feral weaponized black-robed, Dipstick Court jugheads out of the judiciary department. They are a major tentacle owned by the DemonRAT Party of Death, Destruction, Assassins, looting, rioting and insurrection.
IMO-—WE NEED TO REDUCE THE “JUDGES” NUMBERS TO ABOUT 30% OF CURRENT NUMBERS.
Women have no business in the court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.